Gay parenting

[Value Collector]

Well, all I can do is present facts as I see them.

If you believe you have psychiatric abilities at a distance, that is your delusion.

And if you think you can make comments like "underlying discrimination" without presenting evidence of that, and retaining any credibility in this discussion, then that is another delusion you have.

So yes, it's pointless discussing something with a person who is prepared to make accusations without substantiation and runs away when challenged.

However for the record I don't have "staunch anti gay views".

One of the best posters on this forum is gay and I value his opinions more than most.

I just believe that as parents they provide a sub optimal environment for the raising of children.

Of course there are other sub optimal environments, some worse than gay parents, but I feel no obligation to endorse those situations either.

That's your problem, you take your own opinion and the cherry picked opinions of people that agree with you are being evidence that your opinion is right.

try to learn more about confirmation bias, and learn how to avoid it, until then I am done.

 

[SirRumpole]

That's your problem, you take your own opinion and the cherry picked opinions of people that agree with you are being evidence that your opinion is right.

try to learn more about confirmation bias, and learn how to avoid it, until then I am done.

I'm afraid confirmation bias is your is your problem too, but you are too caught up in political correctness to see it.

Your arguments are contradictory and crumble when scrutinised, but if you want your delusions and won't listen to people who have been through the experience, that really is your problem.

 

[sydboy007]

I'm afraid confirmation bias is your is your problem too, but you are too caught up in political correctness to see it.

Your arguments are contradictory and crumble when scrutinised, but if you want your delusions and won't listen to people who have been through the experience, that really is your problem.

So what does it prove if some children from SS parents say they're happy and have no issues about it, while others talk about problems that they experienced? What if the ones who say they have issues have converted to a religion? How do you then know what is due to their upbringing and what comes from the anti gay religious dogma?

What do the individual experiences actually tell us about SS parenting that pin points what the differences are to HS parenting?

Is it fair to blame SS parents if the children suffer being picked on at school because the other kids know they're from a "gay family", or is that a failing of our society to teach children to be more accepting? Would we blame the parents of a child where one parent was say in a wheel chair, or a burn victim, and the kids were teasing them over this?

What specifically do you believe Katy Faust provides to the debate? If you can refer to her direct words would be good as that may help us understand why you believe she speaks for all children raised by SS parents.

 

[SirRumpole]

What specifically do you believe Katy Faust provides to the debate? If you can refer to her direct words would be good as that may help us understand why you believe she speaks for all children raised by SS parents.

She is not the only one

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/lau...-speak-out-against-gay-marriage-federal-court

That's not the only argument, as I've said so many times before.

Are fatherhood and motherhood worthless ?

If so, why is a father and a mother necessary to produce a "natural" child.

They both give something to child rearing that results in an optimal output for children.

It really is up to "alternative" parenting models to prove that they can do as well under equivalent conditions.

Is it fair to blame SS parents if the children suffer being picked on at school because the other kids know they're from a "gay family", or is that a failing of our society to teach children to be more accepting? Would we blame the parents of a child where one parent was say in a wheel chair, or a burn victim, and the kids were teasing them over this?

No child should be picked on for any reason.

 

[Tisme]

It's not a cop out, over the past few days I have realised that your staunch anti gay views, are not related so much to the actual factors you say you are against, but an underlying discrimination, this leads you to seek shelter in confirmation bias and leads me to lose interest in further discussion.

At first I thought you were capable of working through the facts rationally in a dispassionate way, but I have since realised that you are not, so there is no real point discussing it.

I will give it to you that you are not as bad as Tink and Tisme, there case is outright bigotry.

Two things:

1) Rumpole has consistently avoided expressing opposition to homosexuality

2) Tink and Tisme are consistent in their opinions, but not as obstinate as you are in ignoring anecdotal evidences and real data. Bigotry is OK by me, you are the one who is putting some kind of negative on it, in fact you show all the signs of bigotry yourself with you intransigent views.

You have previously resorted to calling me a latent gay in an attempt to cause me anger and ignored the fact that you used gayness as a slur, and to top it off when I reciprocated you deflected rather than embraced the idea and showed some minor hostility ... why is that ? Now you have resorted to bad mouthing three members because you can't win the argument.

Gay parenting reservations are not predicated on the homo v hetro activities, it is based on the suitability of child rearing. There already exists a preferential skew to mothering V fathering yet we don't see (hetro) fathers rallying their cause for equality or lobbying their local MP for special treatment. This is because common sense and maturity overrides stupidity.

 

[sydboy007]

She is not the only one

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/lau...-speak-out-against-gay-marriage-federal-court

So let’s see what is uniquely bad about SS parents, from the mouth of babes so to speak.

“There was no guarantee that any of my Dad’s partners would be around for long, and yet I often had to obey them,” she said. “My rights and innocence were violated.”

Sadly happens with many heterosexual raised children after failed relationships

“As children, we are not allowed to express our disagreement, pain and confusion,” Stefanowicz explained. “Most adult children from gay households do not feel safe or free to publicly express their stories and life-long challenges; they fear losing professional licenses, not obtaining employment in their chosen field, being cut off from some family members or losing whatever relationship they have with their gay parent(s). Some gay parents have threatened to leave no inheritance, if the children don’t accept their parent’s partner du jour.”

Similar issues happen within families where parent's are overtly religious or political. How many children who won’t accept the dogma of their parents beliefs are ostracised from the family?

I'm sure no heterosexual parent has even turned their back on their children.

I grew up with a parent and her partner in an atmosphere in which gay ideology was used as a tool of repression, retribution and abuse,” B.N. Klein wrote of her experience with a lesbian mother. “I have seen that children in gay households often become props to be publicly displayed to prove that gay families are just like heterosexual ones.”

Klein said she was taught that “some Jews and most Christians were stupid and hated gays and were violent,” and that homosexuals were “much more creative and artistic” because they were not repressed and were naturally more ‘feeling.’”

Bigotry from parents is not unique to SS parents. using the fear of the outsider is a great tactic employed by many religions to keep you in the fold.

What are the children of HS parents forced to do beauty pageants? Similar to props. Many parents push their children in inappropriate ways. I speak to so many foreign students studying here doing courses they hate purely because that's what their parents expect and if they chose to do what they enjoy then they'd get no financial help.

What of fathers forcing their sons to play a particular sport so they can relive their glory days?

“I was supposed to hate everyone based on what they thought of my mother and her partner,” said Klein. “People’s accomplishments did not matter, their personal struggles did not matter, and their own histories were of no consequence. The only thing that mattered was what they thought of gays.”

Sounds like how a lot of HS religious families operate. non believers are to be reviled. Just think of how deeply political people view those from the other side and pass that on to their children.

“At the same time I was given the message that if I did not agree (which I did not), I was stupid and damned to a life of punishing hostility from my mother and her partner,” she recounts. “They did this with the encouragement of all their gay friends in the community and they were like a cheering squad. I was only allowed out of my room to go to school. This could go on for weeks.”

Once again, sounds very similar to how many overtly religious HS parents treat their children.

Robert Oscar …

“Had I been formally studied by same-sex parenting ‘experts’ in 1985, I would have confirmed their rosiest estimations of LGBT family life,” Lopez wrote, but then went on to argue against same-sex marriage saying that, “behind these facades of a happy ‘outcome’ lay many problems.”

He describes experiencing a great deal of sexual confusion due to the lack of a father figure in his life. He turned to a life of prostitution with older men as a teenager.

Is this a child blaming their parents for their mistakes? We don’t have the counter factual of him being raised with HS parents and possibly having a similar desire. He was older when he re-established contact with his father, so how much was due to being older and wiser himself and how much the influence of his father?

Katy Faust..

“When we institutionalize same-sex marriage,” Faust writes, “we move from permitting citizens the freedom to live as they choose, to promoting same-sex headed households. In doing so, we ignore the true nature of the outcropping of marriage.”

“Now we are normalizing a family structure where a child will always be deprived daily of one gender influence and the relationship with at least one natural parent,” she explains, “Our cultural narrative becomes one that, in essence, tells children that they have no right to the natural family structure or their biological parents, but that children simply exist for the satisfaction of adult desires.”

Unless a child is home schooled they are going to interact with both sexes on a very regular basis. What of poor HS parents working long hours and rarely home to provide their children support. Wouldn't that be just as detrimental?

I don’t really see that any of these children shine a light on issues that are not replicated within the heterosexual community. None of them talks about being abused or not being loved. How much of their opposition is based on religion? How much is children rebelling against heir parents?

 

[Value Collector]

You have previously resorted to calling me a latent gay in an attempt to cause me anger and ignored the fact that you used gayness as a slur, and to top it off when I reciprocated you deflected rather than embraced the idea and showed some minor hostility.

I never called you gay, I suggested that you may be bisexual, because you feel like you have had to choose between men and women, you don't believe you are born with your sexuality, you believe it's a choice, I simply stated that if you truely feel it's a choice, you might not be 100% straight, there is no slur there, unlike you I don't think there is anything wrong with being gay or bisexual, so it's not a slur.

You then retorted with a statement that was designed as a slur to try and say I was gay, there wasn't any hostility from me, I am comfortable in my sexuality and could see through your statement, I knew it was just designed to offend, as nothing I have said suggests I am anything other than straight, not that it matters.

 

[SirRumpole]

I never called you gay, I suggested that you may be bisexual, because you feel like you have had to choose between men and women, you don't believe you are born with your sexuality, you believe it's a choice, I simply stated that if you truely feel it's a choice, you might not be 100% straight, there is no slur there, unlike you I don't think there is anything wrong with being gay or bisexual, so it's not a slur.

You then retorted with a statement that was designed as a slur to try and say I was gay, there wasn't any hostility from me, I am comfortable in my sexuality and could see through your statement, I knew it was just designed to offend, as nothing I have said suggests I am anything other than straight, not that it matters.

I thought you had gone ?

Is there no peace ?

 

[Tink]

Bigot, hateful, homophobic, anti-gay, discrimination and all the other words to shut you down.

As I have said to Syd, I am standing up for marriage, families and children.

EQUAL IS MOTHER, FATHER AND THEIR CHILD.

Homosexuals weren't the only ones singled out at the time, that was stopped.
Incest, pedophilia, infanticide, the list goes on.

Katy Faust never said a bad word about homosexuals in her interview, and what she said made sense. imo.
She was shouted down as hateful.
Labor and the Greens are just a pack of hypocrites.
I don't see them standing up for the women in these poor countries that are making babies for these homosexual couples.

Fathers and mothers are both needed, and this stems from the marriage debate and parenting.

Trying to black ban the father all the time is all part of their plan to destroy the family.

 

[Tisme]

I never called you gay, I suggested that you may be bisexual, because you feel like you have had to choose between men and women, you don't believe you are born with your sexuality, you believe it's a choice, I simply stated that if you truely feel it's a choice, you might not be 100% straight, there is no slur there, unlike you I don't think there is anything wrong with being gay or bisexual, so it's not a slur.

You then retorted with a statement that was designed as a slur to try and say I was gay, there wasn't any hostility from me, I am comfortable in my sexuality and could see through your statement, I knew it was just designed to offend, as nothing I have said suggests I am anything other than straight, not that it matters.

I don't think you are comfortable at all with your own sexuality and who ever the homosexual it is that is close too you. You are are a self consigned Joan of Arc on a crusade to save him/her and all those of his/her tribe from the evil doers who don't want society to go down your designated path. You even admit that a majority vote to oppose gay marriage will not be of consequence and the cause must go one like day light saving, australian flag and republicanism, little regard for the average person who just wants to be left alone to enjoy whatever good health and trouble frees he/she might have without having catholic guilt sprung on him at every turn.

You bang on about choice versus some abherant genome, that nobody has found, then set about gathering up individuals who practice homosexuality and galvanise them into some kind of Xmen troop with you as Professor X.

You insult your parents and your parent's parents, etc by demeaning an institution that was good enough to umbrella you and your homosexual ward and probably don't even stop to consider the impudence of doing so. Your logic is flawed insofar as you want babies to be reared by homosexuals because they offer the same child services to natural reproductive couples; the model that produces the stigmatised people in the first place.

The choice for gays to participate or not participate in your crusade has been taken away, there is no middle ground, there is no option to escape being tarred with the same brush, you (and many others) are trapping these people and corralling them into a tribe they might not like and taking away their individuality, whereby they are judged, not on their merits, but on their association and all the collusive benefits that come with that; of course you would argue this is a must because of the poor treatment metered out by the majority (strike that you will insist minority which once again defies logic).

 

[sydboy007]

Bigot, hateful, homophobic, anti-gay, discrimination and all the other words to shut you down.

As I have said to Syd, I am standing up for marriage, families and children.

EQUAL IS MOTHER, FATHER AND THEIR CHILD.

Homosexuals weren't the only ones singled out at the time, that was stopped.
Incest, pedophilia, infanticide, the list goes on.

Fathers and mothers are both needed, and this stems from the marriage debate and parenting.

Trying to black ban the father all the time is all part of their plan to destroy the family.

No Tink, you're standing up for you religious views on marriage and family. That is your right. Others are standing up for at least tolerance, and hopefully eventual acceptance of gays and the progression to understanding that their love is EQUAL to that of the dominant heterosexual community. Just as the religious had to accept that slavery was wrong, so eventually they will have to accept that the persecution of gays is wrong.

I thought love was equal?

Are you saying that people of your religion now fully accept homosexuals? Can a gay catholic enter into heaven if they don't accept their homosexuality is a sin? If no, then homosexuality being singled out hasn't been stopped.

What does incest, paedophilia, infanticide have to do with gay parenting?

You do know some same sex partners are both male ie two daddies

 

[Value Collector]

I thought you had gone ?

i said I was done with discussing the topic with you.

 

[Value Collector]

I don't think you are comfortable at all with your own sexuality and who ever the homosexual it is that is close too you. You are are a self consigned Joan of Arc on a crusade to save him/her and all those of his/her tribe from the evil doers who don't want society to go down your designated path. You even admit that a majority vote to oppose gay marriage will not be of consequence and the cause must go one like day light saving, australian flag and republicanism, little regard for the average person who just wants to be left alone to enjoy whatever good health and trouble frees he/she might have without having catholic guilt sprung on him at every turn.

You bang on about choice versus some abherant genome, that nobody has found, then set about gathering up individuals who practice homosexuality and galvanise them into some kind of Xmen troop with you as Professor X.

You insult your parents and your parent's parents, etc by demeaning an institution that was good enough to umbrella you and your homosexual ward and probably don't even stop to consider the impudence of doing so. Your logic is flawed insofar as you want babies to be reared by homosexuals because they offer the same child services to natural reproductive couples; the model that produces the stigmatised people in the first place.

The choice for gays to participate or not participate in your crusade has been taken away, there is no middle ground, there is no option to escape being tarred with the same brush, you (and many others) are trapping these people and corralling them into a tribe they might not like and taking away their individuality, whereby they are judged, not on their merits, but on their association and all the collusive benefits that come with that; of course you would argue this is a must because of the poor treatment metered out by the majority (strike that you will insist minority which once again defies logic).

if I were gay, I wouldn't have any shame in admitting it, as I said there is nothing wrong with.


Yes, a majority vote to take human rights away from the gay members of our society would not make it right, any more than a majority vote to bring back slavery would make slavery right. You need to do some work to figure out how real world morality works, biblical morality, mob morality etc are all immoral.

How have I demeaned parents?

 

[SirRumpole]

Sounds like how a lot of HS religious families operate. non believers are to be reviled. Just think of how deeply political people view those from the other side and pass that on to their children.

The point really is Syd, do you think such things are good parenting for children or not, regardless of whether practised by HS's or gays ? I don't. If you don't think they are good, then you have a duty to say so without bias towards gays or HS.

Merely making excuses for one group on the basis that the others do it as well is not really acceptable logic.

I grew up with a parent and her partner in an atmosphere in which gay ideology was used as a tool of repression, retribution and abuse,” B.N. Klein wrote of her experience with a lesbian mother. “I have seen that children in gay households often become props to be publicly displayed to prove that gay families are just like heterosexual ones.”

Klein said she was taught that “some Jews and most Christians were stupid and hated gays and were violent,” and that homosexuals were “much more creative and artistic” because they were not repressed and were naturally more ‘feeling.’”

I doubt if many or any heterosexuals have children to promote the heterosexual cause. There is no point, we know heterosexuals have children, they do it all the time.

Klein's experience is that she was raised largely as a mobile advertising campaign to promote the lifestyle of a small minority that she later realised that she did not subscribe to. That is pretty blatant child exploitation in my book so why should we not condemn it ? And it's a very poor reason to have children in the first place.

 

[Tink]

Well, Brendan O'Neill isn't religious and he agrees with me.

BRENDAN O'NEILL: It is about becoming part of a community. My problem with the gay marriage debate is that it actually increases the state's oversight of family life rather than decreasing it. So the presentation of this as a liberal issue is completely facetious. This is about the state having the right to redefine the moral meaning of marriage. Now, the modern state brokers marriage, we know that. It brokers it. It gives you a certificate. It says you’re married, thumbs up, well done. This gives the state the right to redefine the moral meaning of marriage, which has been an organic thing developed over thousands of years. For me, as a libertarian, that's a step too far and I think for you to redefine a view that was standard for thousands of years as bigotry, that in itself is a form of bigotry because what you’re saying is that you will not tolerate traditionalists. You will not tolerate religious people. You will not tolerate Christians.

BRENDAN O'NEILL: Gay marriage activists compare themselves to Martin Luther King. Martin Luther King said, "We do not hate our enemies. We love them".
The exact opposite is the case of gay marriage activists. The exact opposite.

BRENDAN O'NEILL: What's wrong is the silencing, the sacking of people, the demonisation of people, the harassment of people who have a different view.

 

[SirRumpole]

i said I was done with discussing the topic with you.

Yes, interesting though that you continue the discussion with people who you say are more bigoted than I am.

I think that says more about the standard of your argument than you realise.

 

[Value Collector]

interesting though that you continue the discussion with people who you say are more bigoted than I am.

.

I am not discussing the subject with them, I responded to a comment directed towards me, to clarify a position I had stated earlier.

Same with this comment, this is not part of the discussion which I have ceased with you, I am just responding to a comment you have directed towards me, stop directing comments at me and I will cease having to clarify and correct them.

 

[SirRumpole]

Same with this comment, this is not part of the discussion which I have ceased with you, I am just responding to a comment you have directed towards me, stop directing comments at me and I will cease having to clarify and correct them.

Oh certainly your Saintliness, no further comments will be aimed in your direction, to save you the embarrassment of not being able to answer them.

 

[sydboy007]

The point really is Syd, do you think such things are good parenting for children or not, regardless of whether practised by HS's or gays ? I don't. If you don't think they are good, then you have a duty to say so without bias towards gays or HS.

Merely making excuses for one group on the basis that the others do it as well is not really acceptable logic.



I doubt if many or any heterosexuals have children to promote the heterosexual cause. There is no point, we know heterosexuals have children, they do it all the time.

Klein's experience is that she was raised largely as a mobile advertising campaign to promote the lifestyle of a small minority that she later realised that she did not subscribe to. That is pretty blatant child exploitation in my book so why should we not condemn it ? And it's a very poor reason to have children in the first place.

You are using the 4 children to prove that SS parenting is wrong. The fact that the same issues occur in HS parenting is irrelevant to the topic?

The point I'm making if the criteria the children have presented is deemed valid to restrict SS marriage, then shouldn't it also be valid for restricting HS marriage? If you only apply the rules to one group, while another group can continue to do the negative actions, then how is that reasonable in a democracy?

As for Klein, how do we verify the veracity of what she says. I don't doubt that is how she is feeling, but as has been shown memory is a fickle thing. Studies show that people who fear / have negative views about blacks when shown a video of a white person doing a robbery saw a black man.

So how does the testimony of children who talk positively of SS parenting affect you views?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-...ame-sex-couples-healthier-study-finds/5574168

In what they described as the largest study of its type in the world, University of Melbourne researchers surveyed 315 same-sex parents and 500 children about their physical health and social wellbeing.

Lead researcher Doctor Simon Crouch said children raised by same-sex partners scored an average of 6 per cent higher than the general population on measures of general health and family cohesion.

"That's really a measure that looks at how well families get along, and it seems that same-sex-parent families and the children in them are getting along well, and this has positive impacts on child health," Dr Crouch said.

There were more than 33,000 families with same-sex parents living in Australia, according to the most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics census.

Dr Crouch said same-sex couples faced less pressure to fulfil traditional gender roles, which led to a more harmonious households.

"Previous research has suggested that parenting roles and work roles, and home roles within same-sex parenting families are more equitably distributed when compared to heterosexual families," he said.

"So what this means is that people take on roles that are suited to their skill sets rather than falling into those gender stereotypes, which is mum staying home and looking after the kids and dad going out to earn money.

"What this leads to is a more harmonious family unit and therefore feeding on to better health and wellbeing."

I don't think it's controversial to believe that some men are better nurturers than their wives. Some wives may be better at fulfilling what are generally considered the domain of the father.

"Quite often, people talk about marriage equality in the context of family and that marriage is necessary to raise children in the right environment, and that you need a mother and a father to be able to do that, and therefore marriage should be restricted to male and female couples," Dr Crouch said.

"I think what the study suggests in that context is that actually children can be brought up in many different family contexts, and it shouldn't be a barrier to marriage equality."

http://qz.com/438469/the-science-is...d-by-same-sex-parents-are-at-no-disadvantage/

In January, researchers from the Columbia Law School examined 76 studies published after 1985 and found that only four of them concluded that children raised by gay couples faced additional adversity as a result of having same-sex parents. To be considered, each of the studies had to meet established guidelines that accounted for credibility and relevance.

It’s also worth noting that the American Academy of Pediatrics supports all different kinds of parents that provide children with a stable home.

http://www.livescience.com/28079-why-gay-parents-are-awesome.html

2. They nurture the neediest

Gay parents are a huge resource for kids awaiting adoption, particularly the neediest cases. In October 2011, the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute found that 60 percent of gay and lesbian adoptive parents adopt across races, which is important because minority kids have a tougher time getting out of the foster system. And 25 percent of kids placed with adoptive gay and lesbian parents were older than 3 — also a tough age range to adopt. More than half of the kids had special needs.

A 2007 report by the Urban Institute found that more than half of gay men and 41 percent of lesbians in the United States would like to adopt. That's a huge number of potential parents, far dwarfing the more than 100,000 adoptable kids stuck in foster care today.

So SS couples in the USA are willing to accept the discarded children from HS parents, willing to take in the minorities, including those with special needs. What does that say about the heterosexual world?

3. They foster tolerance

Here's an advantage straight from the horse's mouth: Kids raised by gay and lesbian parents say their upbringing taught them open-mindedness and empathy.

In a 2007 study published in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Clark University's Goldberg interviewed 46 adults who grew up with at least one gay parent. Twenty-eight of the interviewees independently mentioned that they felt their upbringing made them more tolerant and accepting.

"Men and women felt like they were free to pursue a wide range of interests," Goldberg said. "Nobody was telling them, 'Oh, you can't do that, that's a boy thing,' or 'That's a girl thing.'"

the below is only about 12 pages but well worth a read

https://groups.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/Griffiths ACP 2 11.pdf

 

[SirRumpole]

So what can you tell by a "survey" ?

How were the recipients selected, by volunteers ? ie self selection ? That creates a bias that leads to only those who think they will "pass" volunteering for the survey. ie it's not a balanced sample.

57
The Australian Community Psychologist Volume 23 No 2
August 2011
© The Australian Psychological Society Ltd
Procedure
All families were contacted by email or
telephone by the research
er. They were provided
with an information letter,
detailing the purpose of
the research and were asked
if they were interested
in taking part in the study.

Were the children surveyed or the parents ?

A lot of these studies survey the parents about the children. The parents are the ones being tested, they know it and they are more likely to give answers that show themselves in a better light. Indeed, the study you quoted says this in its introduction

Limitations of this study include the lack of child participants, meaning mothers were speaking on behalf of their children. Future studies could include using child interviews and gay fathers.

My bolds

The methodology of theses studies has to be examined, not just the conclusions. Going by the one you have quoted, they leave a lot to be desired.

A quick skim of the "study" you quoted , reads like a cheap propaganda exercise for the gay lobby.

In addition,
however, they also face struggles due to the
presence of heterosexism in society.
Heterosexism is defined as the
institutionalised practise of favouring
heterosexuality, based on the assumption that
heterosexuality is the only normal sexual
orientation, thus making homosexuality
abnormal (Chesir-Teran, 2003). The
manifestation of heterosexism in the
community leads to the attitude that
homosexuality is wrong which in turn fuels
much of the stigma, discrimination and
homophobic incidents directed at gays and
lesbians.

Participants
Five lesbian couples
raising children
within the greater metropolitan area of Perth,
Western Australia partic
ipated in this study (
n
=
10 total participants). Each couple was raising
one child (identified as
a person below the age
of 18 years) in their home. The number of
children in this study wa
s therefore five. Two
families also had four additional adult children
(total number of adult offspring = 8). In both of
these families, one of the adult children was also
living in the family premises at the time of the
current study. Below are brief vignettes
describing the familial structure of the
participants.

Five couples, hardly a big sample size on which to base definite conclusions

Methodology
The current study will adopt a
phenomenological methodological approach in
which the life experiences of participants and
the meanings that they attach to these
experiences is the focus of attention

So basically, all this study is is five lesbian couples telling "their story", from "their" point of view. Confirmation bias at it's best (or worst).

Sorry, there needs to be some better evidence than that.

So SS couples in the USA are willing to accept the discarded children from HS parents, willing to take in the minorities, including those with special needs. What does that say about the heterosexual world?

I don't know, apart from the fact that hets are 98% of the population so therefore there is likely to be a bigger rate of unwanted children compared to the gay population. But all the ills you portray on heterosexuals could be exhibited by the gay population. To cast all hets as naughty and all gays as angelic is unrealistic.